The bbc, again.

[georgenorman]

We should not be forced to fund an organisation that creates false news and gives tacit support to terrorist groups and far-left politics.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Yup, it's simply not good enough. They think that wheeling out a Z list celebrity in front of the camera to learn about baking, DIY or gardening is something we want to watch.

Somehow they have to up their spending on original non news programmes. To do that they need to cut back on the bureaucrats.

I never watch those type of programme. That’s my choice. I do though pay for the licence. That’s my obligation.

How the BBC decides to satisfy its very varied viewer base is up to them. What part of their output suits me is my decision.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

BBC Christmas highlights are a fine example or urine-poor programmes.

Celebrity Bake off
Celebrity Dance off
Celebrity Apprentice (nearly forgot)
Christmas with some of the Royal Family (another public-funded shambles)
re-runs of stuff they used to do very well.

And they want people to watch this ? and pay for it ?

Then don’t watch those programmes. That’s your decision.

Paying for it isn’t. The BBC is not just another broadcaster. It’s our national broadcaster. There are other things it does other than make programmes, or show repeats, you don’t like.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I have evidence, some of which I have presented, but you asked me to prove it and I don’t need to. This isn’t a court of law in which the outcome depends on proof. This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays because everyone, in their opinion, benefits.

What you, or I, think about the issue is irrelevant.

The government determines the level of funding the BBC needs to meet their obligations. Not how it is spent. Traditionally it’s been raised via the broadcasting licence but it looks likely to be scrapped and replaced by something more appropriate for the way we live now.Something backsliders cannot avoid.

This is increasingly becoming less a defence of the BBC and more the usual defence of Governmental authority. Should a future government scrap the licence fee you'll presumably support that decision as vehemently.
Licenses had some validity when the BBC had a monopoly but now there are too many options.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Which is why the BBC is reaching a crossroads. People are swerving obligations to pay for a TV licence, because they have found other media outlets providing better value.
It will be impossible to impose a BBC tax, which is why alternate forms of funding are being explored, such as advertising revenue.
People are voicing their dissatisfaction with the BBC services via their wallets and media choices. Trying to impose a direct levvy on the entire population for something that the viewing figures suggest they are increasingly fed-up with , would be hugely unpopular for any Government to do.

It won’t be either advertising in the UK or subscription. Either would destroy the ethos of the BBC and remove its point of difference. That point of difference being essential as a marketing tool in the world market it functions in.

Something independent of taxation yet as unavoidable as taxation must be found. A communication levy applied to internet charges being my preferred option. It would certainly be unpopular with some. Not with others. How it’s introduced will be difficult to balance and interesting to observe. Possibly in stages, with the licence continuing at a reduced rate for a while, boosted by a moderate levy and increased funding from taxation. We will see.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

This is increasingly becoming less a defence of the BBC and more the usual defence of Governmental authority. Should a future government scrap the licence fee you'll presumably support that decision as vehemently.
Licenses had some validity when the BBC had a monopoly but now there are too many options.

I wouldn’t defend it at all. I would criticise it with all the arguments that would show why it was a mistake. What I wouldn’t do is refuse to pay whatever was put in its place, unless optional.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I wouldn’t defend it at all. I would criticise it with all the arguments that would show why it was a mistake. What I wouldn’t do is refuse to pay whatever was put in its place, unless optional.

"This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays..."

 

[Rudi Hedman]

This is increasingly becoming less a defence of the BBC and more the usual defence of Governmental authority. Should a future government scrap the licence fee you'll presumably support that decision as vehemently.
Licenses had some validity when the BBC had a monopoly but now there are too many options.

Daily x 178

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

"This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays..."

If you choose to quote me it would be a courtesy to do so in full, and not remove part, thus distorting the context. The quote was:-

“This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays because everyone, in their opinion, benefits.”

The missing words being critical to my argument!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

If you choose to quote me it would be a courtesy to do so in full, and not remove part, thus distorting the context. The quote was:-

“This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays because everyone, in their opinion, benefits.”

The missing words being critical to my argument!

Call it a BBC edit. It's fine when they do it.

 

[cryrst]

Call it a BBC edit. It's fine when they do it.

Bingo but ok to do it to others 😂

 

[Spiderman]

If you choose to quote me it would be a courtesy to do so in full, and not remove part, thus distorting the context. The quote was:-

“This is a matter determined by government. It’s them, not you, who decide whether everyone pays because everyone, in their opinion, benefits.”

The missing words being critical to my argument!

Oh the irony

 

[cryrst]

Oh the irony

Yeah like bits were strung together in an order that suited the editor and it didn’t change what wissie actually meant !

 

[Badger11]

BBC suffers worst Christmas ratings ever. They did beat ITV, but then then always do, apparently their top rated show was the king's Speech at a shade under 5m viewers.

Oh for the days of 20m watching Morecambe and Wise.

Both BBC and ITV cannot compete with streaming shows. It's getter harder and harder to justify the licence tax when no one is watching. There are rumours that ITV will be sold, I'm not surprised.

The BBC must spend more money on programming which means cutting back elsewhere.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Call it a BBC edit. It's fine when they do it.

I expected you to say that, but you are wrong. The BBC “edit” you allude to was in an entirely different context. They were using two clips as evidence about an attitude that led to a riot. Their subject being the rioters and not the person involved in the clips. You deliberately altered my words when your subject was me.

I bet though that difference is far too subtle to be understood by many here.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I expected you to say that, but you are wrong. The BBC “edit” you allude to was in an entirely different context. They were using two clips as evidence about an attitude that led to a riot. Their subject being the rioters and not the person involved in the clips. You deliberately altered my words when your subject was me.

I bet though that difference is far too subtle to be understood by many here.

How were your words altered? It was a direct quote. The difference with the BBC was that ellipses were added to show an edit had been made. Apart from that you're 100% right.

 

[silvertop]

Prove it.

The burden of proof is on those arguing against the BBC. It's your sides post and your argument. So prove otherwise.

For me Wisbech s post simply states what's obvious. It's close to a truism. Ask most foreigners what they think of the BBC and they place it as.the only trustworthy international news broadcaster. Why the current issue with Trump is so damaging for the corporation's image.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The burden of proof is on those arguing against the BBC. It's your sides post and your argument. So prove otherwise.

For me Wisbech s post simply states what's obvious. It's close to a truism. Ask most foreigners what they think of the BBC and they place it as.the only trustworthy international news broadcaster. Why the current issue with Trump is so damaging for the corporation's image.

I was asking for proof of the claimed benefits of the BBC. Nothing else.

 

[silvertop]

I was asking for proof of the claimed benefits of the BBC. Nothing else.

My comment about the value placed on the BBC overseas is such proof.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

My comment about the value placed on the BBC overseas is such proof.

No it isn't. It's just an opinion to justify the licence fee.